If I vote for this then in return @ned will you consider discussing the proposal from @kevinwong and @trafalgar ?
I Resteemed your post as a first step.
The proposal for you to review and discuss:
It deserves your attention and your input specifically.
I am doing it, netcoins voting.
However hard we vote for exchange listing,
it would be no use if we let the self-fucked-justice bamboo-spearing Commie or Contents-Nazi or Contents-Facist down-vote-manslaughter and expel Steemians.
News that Steem is a place where self-fucked-justice bamboo-spearing Commie or Contents-Nazi or Contents-Facist down-vote-manslaughter and expel Steemians and is not a good place for blogging is spreading into people.
And the current Steem investors are withdrawing,
and prospective Steem investors are hesitating to invest in and enter Steem,
and Steem is becoming a place full of disguised self/mutual voting robots and human-terminating robots instead of human writers.
Anyone can witness how the man-slaughtering Content-Nazis let their mad robots bamboo-spear human writings and destroy the Freedom of Writing, Right to Show Opposing Opinions and Right of Human-survival in Steem.
Wars will go on forever for the Freedom of Writing, Right to Show Opposing Opinions and Right of Human-survival in Steem, against human-terminating robots.
STEEM could use Economic shifts to reinvigorate the content discovery and opportunity. It could also use SMTs for this. Considering how much Rewards need a CounterPart UI that respects the intended outcome such as Content Discovery, UIs could make changes to adapt to what Kevin is asking for. Additionally, SMTs has always partly been an opportunity to engage in experimentation prior to Economic Shifts in STEEM. That said, I like Kevin’s proposal, probabaly all three pieces, and it’s noted that shifting curation rewards and lowering the cost of downvotes would be fairly simple code changes to implement. It’s also noteworthy that Super Linear Rewards beneath n-squared is not so costless from a coding standpoint.
My response to Kevin’s pitch to him and others in a chat has been to remind folks what new user experience had often been under Super Linear Reward conditions:
The result of this outcome was often that Super Linear Rewards are inexplicable to new users causing difficulty meeting user expectations (particularly around “get paid to post”) and reveal a system that is not about how good the content is, but rather about How Big is Your Network or How Much Are You Networked Here. That super linear rewards become about Networking instead of Content, and disturb new users by making the system incomprehensible, makes it difficult for me to want to go back to. That said — if the entire community wanted it — I am listening. I found Kevin and Traf’s arguments strong all the way through. Personally, I could spend a blogpost speaking to the merits of Linear Rewards.
So my suggestions: 1. There is a need for STEEM Economic Shifts. 2. There are many other Economic Shift Possibilites, such as 100% Curation Rewards and 0 Creator Rewards. 3. SMTs would allow us to play with some of these experiments. 4. There is tons of demand for SMTs from many of our current 500+ apps for both fundraisings and user incentives. 5. Vote Buying Can Be Considered a UI issue. 6. Stay the course; Pursue the conversation of Economic Shifts (or not) in STEEM after SMTs
For me, this plan allows us to stay in line with my mission with Steemit as a Steem Development company, to “Code Steem so that it can help us Makes Great Communities.” Communities, for me, includes groups for shared interests, entrepreneurs and developers of apps.
I’m open to all input and requests for Economic Shifts and I believe yes it needs to be on Steem’s Roadmap.
What do you think about a reward curve which started as n^2 / exponential (thus flat), and then later changed into linear which would work against both, self-voting as well as excessive rewards?
@clayop had a similar idea.
Needs actual code. Needs testing on performance impact, etc. It's probably a reasonable idea although depending on the paramaters not necessary much different from the current dust penalty, possibly increased somewhat.
Please do no change to the CORE economy!
I believe in additional rewarding using SMTs will yield us the concrete results we seek.
What we do need is to speed up the account creation process and make it easy for anyone to become an on-boarder.
People are just freaked out because the price of all crypto is low, so all kinds of crisis solutions to synthetic problems arise.
Let us be conservative in this economy, no changes to CORE and full focus on inflation of account creation and SMTs.
That’s good input too. And I’ve clarified my comment that deciding on No Change is OK too, while having a strong preference for more impactful discussion after the learning happens through SMTs.
BTW Steem Monsters created hundreds of accounts recently! HF20 is beginning to make breakthroughs there. With the coming Delegated Resource Credits I believe we Steem should be able to open the flood gates.
But is it there any water behind these gates?
Source
Steem Monsters was here well before HF20. You can't claim any HF20 successes from Steem Monsters because the two are completely separate and unrelated.
He's not though. He is saying that Steemmonsters has been able to onboard a lot of new users by using RC instead of delegations to pay for the account creations, which was one of the main features of Hardfork 20.
Agree to disagree
lol
This is true. From what I can see there is no cost free solution. I do think that at least back then some added value was being rewarded. Now there appears to be a broken economic incentive structure which isn't even as good as things were under super linear. I could be wrong but I'm going off memory of 2017.
Things were bad back then but the changes seem to have turned bad into worse. SMTs I do have hope for but this will take perhaps too long to arrive. We need a quick solution for now so as to convince people to hang on for the ride until SMT is ready.
Perhaps you should? What did we gain in practice which is measurable from the data? Did we get an explosion of growth in new users? Did we get added retention? What was improved from before?
Proof-of-Networking.
I like it.
https://steemit.com/steemit/@nonameslefttouse/turning-rage-into-the-soothing-steem-now-blowing-out-my-butt-as-i-mince-my-words-for-you-the-reader-of-this
I've been pounding the pavement with that link, hopefully not too much to bother anyone but just enough to get some of the attention I feel it deserves.
I offer my perspective of the current struggles I face here and I'm not alone; enough agree with what I had to say there. I also offer a potential solution near the end of the post. That post turned into something like a choose your own story book with the amount of included rabbit holes. Plenty of good stuff to read there and in the comments section.
Have a look, power through it, it won't hurt you, you might learn something, maybe not. I'll go have a look at this Netcoins thing now.
I think perhaps the vote buying bot situation is a UI issue. If we could change the "promoted" feature on Steemit to be something more useful as a form of advertising, perhaps with paid notifications or similar? Or actual banners or similar? Then people wouldn't have to pay bots and do anti-social activities.
Best of all using the promoted feature would burn Steem in exchange for advertising. I don't know why we aren't using ads.
Way back in January I suggested posts using paid votes should be detected by the UI, removed from 'trending' or 'hot', then placed in the 'promoted' tab. Paid votes basically means paid programming, converting the content into a form of advertising regardless of what's inside.
Ford will buy a television time slot at noon on a Sunday to offer the world an advertisement disguised as a show about people testing cars. One half hour of positives reviews. If the mock television show didn't come with a warning at the start about how you, the viewer, are about to watch paid programming, Ford could get sued for false advertising. So I've also suggested posts converted to promotions/advertisements be labelled accordingly. You can scroll through trending on Youtube, see organically popular content, then they slip and ad in but it's no secret that particular link is an ad because it's labelled.
They don't have to. They were misled by unmarked ads on a trending page. "It's hard to get noticed," they said, creating the 'problem', then they offered the supposed 'solution' for a fee. That's the oldest trick in the book to get someone to buy an idea. The ads looked like friendly bloggers who believed in the platform and want to help. McDonalds looks like a friendly place to eat when they advertise as well.
This current situation is mainly a UI issue, I agree. People are exploiting the design.
I have always been a believer in quality content being the key to Steemit's success. As a result, I am a huge proponent of changes that would shift rewards from low quality posts to high quality, engaging content that could bring in an outside audience of consumers rather than more producers.
We need content consumers here who are willing to give up profit in exchange for encouraging producers to make content they enjoy. People don't take every spare penny they have and put it in the bank, stocks or crypto. They spend it on movie tickets, sporting events, plays, concerts, video games, Netflix, etc.
We need content so good that people would rather vote for that content (in order to assure it keeps getting made) rather than make a profit voting for themselves. In the process those people would be thrilled to make a tiny bit from their curation rewards. We need to bring back the attitude of "I got paid to watch that video I would have actually paid to see?!!! That's incredible!"
That being said, I fully DISAGREE with the idea that making downvotes easier and cheaper will help in any way. I think it will be disastrous. We have already seen the vast majority of people use their upvotes in a selfish and shortsighted way. What makes anyone believe people will not use downvotes in a selfish and shortsighted way? Do we trust people to use downvotes to help the platform or to help themselves?
Quality content that does not earn rewards because people are using their SP to benefit only themselves is bad for that quality content producer... but they may keep trying. On the other hand, if a quality content producer finally earns some rewards on a post and then it is downvoted for selfish and shortsighted reasons (like to put one's own post above the quality one on trending... or to bury it altogether) that quality content producer is very likely going to say "screw this!" and leave. The selfish downvoter has just been rewarded... "I got rid of the competition."
Since buying votes is much like flagging/downvoting content producers who do not buy votes, we can already see a world where quality content producers are saying "screw this" and leaving. The selfish upvoter in this case is being rewarded because "I got rid of the competition." Since we see this happening now, I'm sure we'll see it happen the other way around with downvotes, which is unfortunate.
Remember when Napster and Metallica made headlines? One side wanted entertainment for free and the artists didn't think it was fair to work for nothing. So here we are, years later. The artist/writer etc can get paid, and the content consumer can leave with more money than they had before they were entertained. If you would have told those who wanted entertainment to be free way back when that they could download their mp3 files AND get paid, they would have laughed at you and said you're crazy... but here we are.
If you make down voting cheaper you will have even more down-vote-trolls than now! If anything make it cost more to down vote someones content. A lot of people have different OP as to what should be down voted. There are currently some very high profile trolls with large stakes down voting a lot of content already.
P.S. @ned
“Options to Buy”, I might call them. — They could be on the table and would require specified measurable work from our counterparty.
@ned.
Perhaps some more options for content discovery, filtering and such ought come first? Before a major economic shift like 100 Curation 0 Creator reward?
Filter by word count, combinations of tags, and just more that five tags in general. Search granularity isn't fine enough. "Not worth it" on average. (Steemit has market position; it's where everybody new goes first.) Search cost must be far less than value-to-the-reader of content found. Which not the case, and that, besides the boundary conditions, is possibly half of what incentivizes many large and small stake users to farm. (Thereby lowering the prestige of the system.)
Then a "recommended" algorithm with parameters users can tweak may be the first thing to try.
Agree about the linear versus nonlinear rewards, basically. Same argument as you cited.
Overall if doing economic shifts, whatever is chosen must be strategically neutral. If the desire is for it not to be gamed. Meaning that if a user makes a list of alternative events and estimates probability and their strategy is the aggregate of best responses to each of these; but it shouldn't depend on which of them actually happens. And best responses must exist for each. (The sleeping soundly rule.) The strategy should not vary depending on which one the user anticipates will actually happen. (The user should not have to believe anything.) And no strategy should be both pure and dominant.
The promoted feature in my opinion needs an improve UI and UX. In other words we need to make better use of advertising using the mechanism in Steem built for this purpose. People now are paying bots for advertising which makes the promoted portion of Steemit completely useless.
Steem's participation economy (vs. the investment economy) works entirely inasmuch as there are users present who are interested in participating. Growing the participation economy thus requires increasing the population of users who are interested in participating, and maintaining those users who are already here and doing so.
Changing the economic incentives around in order to force interest in participating out of those who are already uninterested will not work, and sacrificing our abilities to attract new users to do so is entirely backwards thinking. If economic incentives are to be changed they should be changed to attract new participants - as linear rewards do, as high author rewards do - rather than discourage them.
I'm guessing a lot of the people addressing the issues at hand here will be present at SteemFest 3.
A great opportunity to discuss this in person and come up with some possible solutions (or agreeing if there is a problem or not).
Sheez @ned. Now this is Interesting!! I wonder, if under this novel idea there will be something to 'curate' on the steem blockchain at all. };)
I think 100% curation is just the same effect as 0% curation, just as 25% curation is the same as 75% curation in terms of economic behaviour.
Hey @etherpunk. Thanks for your reply mate but... Would you care to elaborate a bit further your math here? I suspect I'm not understanding it thoroughly. :)
Excuse me, but I am having a hard time forcing my brain to accept that I just read that. In truth, I cannot think of a single better way to absolutely destroy the entire premise of the site than this.
First of all, Hardfork 20 has already damaged the site's usability almost irreparably by guaranteeing that only those who invest large amounts of money in the platform can interact with it (I'm using up more than a day's worth of resource credits typing this reply). Users who spend high amounts of money on Steem are allowed the "privilege of speaking" more often while those who do not must count the words they use because they have a remarkably limited daily ration of them. So much for "decentralization;" the entire world is plagued with the principle of haves being given more of a voice than have-nots, but only Steemit has managed to create a blockchain-enforced systemic guarantee that this principle will have no exceptions.
Meanwhile the loss of voting power that came about from the advent of these "Resource Credits" in the same Hardfork has made it so unlikely that anything will ever be upvoted that the chances of ever being rewarded for content went from microscopic (as they were before) to sub-atomic. At this point Steemit has become a clone of ancient and long-forgotten Livejournal, except that Livejournal offered unlimited free usability and Steemit does not.
And now, you have an idea to take away author rewards altogether, meaning that there is no longer any incentive to create quality content at all since the rewards would be solely generated based on "hey, you liked the same thing as everyone else! Good little social sheep. Here's your daily ration." The most ironic thing is that this you put this forth as a solution to the problem of rewards being based on networking rather than content. It sounds more like gasoline on the fire you described than a solution to it.
At the risk of being crass, this idea is roughly akin to a Hooters manager saying he wants to try out an all-male wait-staff, then saying he will no longer pay his employees and give their pay to his advertisers instead. Not only does it throw out the business's original draw, but it guarantees that no one will want to contribute anything worthwhile.
If you want to solve the "bigger network pays more than good content" problem, here is my suggestion.
Let curator rewards only go to those who actually resteem content, rather than those who simply click the "upvote" button.
You like the article? You want a piece of the pie? Then invest some of your resource credits sharing it.
That way, the curator rewards go to those who actually recognize good content and say "hey people should see this" instead of simply "come, minions! Make money for me by lavishing me with praise and I shall graciously share some of the scraps with you!" That's just my two cents.
@ned - can you please provide more info about the 500+ apps expected to adopt SMTs , maybe as a new blog post ?
Please give us a preview of what to expect March 2019.
Our VR front-end with AR capability is one such dApp currently auctioning SMT.
And a pretty exciting one at that.
How would 100% curation rewards work for content creators?
Everyone would stop writing for a guess, there simply would be no point!
I guess you would still get the curation rewards from your own upvote. But seems a radial departure from where we are now.
Would that not mean more power to the self voter? just make a post like haejin does, upvote it yourself, 10 x a day, and forget about talking to people, interacting and upvoting anyone else, wait! that happens now lol.
Ack!
OTOH:
I could not more eagerly await the results of some of those experiments, as I hope to see communities more highly valuing aspects of society that are far more essential than mere finance organically prospering to such an extent that many folks are shocked - and become aware that those social benefits are far more important than mere money.
Thanks for this informed and informative response!
I appreciate it.
100% curation rewards could be an interesting experiment, we are thinking about launching a dapp and an smt next year, we'll have that way of distributing the rewards among our options.
Downvoting someone with higher REP should not be effectless.
Posted using Partiko Android
We need to bloody win! Netcoins just got approved for 42 US states as of today:
https://steemit.com/dlike/@techwizardry/netcoins-launches-in-42-us-states-effective-immediately-canadian-stock-exchangenetccn